Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Theologian in Training

Atheism

Recommended Posts

Theologian in Training
[quote name='Semalsia' post='1665219' date='Sep 27 2008, 06:50 PM']I'm not a scientist, but a fingerprint type of thing sounds plausible. I have no idea what that would look like, though. But as far as I know, no such thing has been found. And I'm not sure it matters since the existence of God doesn't necessitate the fingerprint.[/quote]

But, doesn't a fingerprint necessitate a finger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hassan
[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1665650' date='Sep 28 2008, 10:43 AM']But, doesn't a fingerprint necessitate a finger?[/quote]

yes. Feif has somewhat recanted on his views. I beleive he said Dawkins mislead him or he misunderstood him or something. I beleive that he also rejects a personal God. Unless I'm thinking of the wrong person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theologian in Training
[quote name='Hassan' post='1665651' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:47 PM']yes. Feif has somewhat recanted on his views. I beleive he said Dawkins mislead him or he misunderstood him or something. I beleive that he also rejects a personal God. Unless I'm thinking of the wrong person.[/quote]

Feif?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hassan
[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1665654' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:09 PM']Feif?[/quote]


Sorry, Flew

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1"]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine...nted=1&_r=1[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phazzan
[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1665649' date='Sep 28 2008, 11:40 AM']But, I think the distinction is important because that difference in faith why we believe in God and not in cow dung. The "supernatural" part, that is, the part that distinguishes it from "beyond natural" to just natural is how faith, in that sense, is possible.

Besides, normally "faith" is associated in a religious context, in fact, to directly quote webster's

[url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith"]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith[/url]

Main Entry:
1faith Listen to the pronunciation of 1faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology:
Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date:
13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): [b]firm belief in something for which there is no proof[/b] (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

So, I would think the distinction is important and would further wonder if we are even speaking about faith or just simple trust in everyday objects.[/quote]

The definition doesn't make reference to everyday objects, just abstract things like allegiance and sincerity (see bold), therefore in the context of this discussion and things relating to science I think it's pointless to make distinctions between cow dung faith and god faith as the difference is already implied and understood.

Anyway, back to the original argument;

[quote]In terms of the intangible, if there is evidence of those things, how does God not fall into those?[/quote]

Those things we can ascribe to science which have been tested, measured and verified in some way using reliable scientific testing methods in a controlled environment and are universally accepted as fact, whereas god requires supernatural faith, which hasn't been tested, measured and verified in some way using reliable scientfic testing methods in a controlled enviroment and is not universally accepted as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester
[quote name='Semalsia' post='1665176' date='Sep 27 2008, 04:11 PM']You seem to have missed my point. The analogy wasn't between the nature of God and the nature of cake, but between my positions on their existence. Furthermore, the analogy was meant as an explanation of my thinking process which stays the same whether the question is about cake or God.[/quote]
If you deny everything but what you perceive, you are a solipsist, not an atheist.


[quote]Why? Are you saying those two passages you quoted are somehow contradictory?[/quote]
I'll drop this. I was going in a wrong direction.
Sorry.

[quote]Historical prevalence can be used to show whether something has utility, but that has nothing to do with whether we should actually do it or not. Murder has utility, but it is immoral. Neither does it show us what is true and what isn't. Belief in astrology is prevalent and yet it is false.

Your claim that atheists have no morality is such a ridiculous and clearly false statement.[/quote]
I has something to do with figuring out whether or not an action would have desired consequences. Utility is part of the decision to undertake many actions. I cannot agree that it has nothing to do with whether or not we should do it. I've used history to make many decisions. I am not, however, a historicist.

I don't claim that atheists have no morality. Merely that there is no morality if atheists are correct. There are personal codes and social contracts, but nothing is objectively immoral. Do you believe morality has existence outside of man and the perceptions of man? [i]Why [/i] is murder immoral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hassan
[quote name='Winchester' post='1665799' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:47 PM']If you deny everything but what you perceive, you are a solipsist, not an atheist.[/quote]

That's not solipsism.

And a solipsist can be an atheist.


[quote]I has something to do with figuring out whether or not an action would have desired consequences. Utility is part of the decision to undertake many actions. I cannot agree that it has nothing to do with whether or not we should do it. I've used history to make many decisions. I am not, however, a historicist.[/quote]

Sure.

[quote]I don't claim that atheists have no morality. Merely that there is no morality if atheists are correct.[/quote]
What you conceive as morality does not exist.

[quote]There are personal codes and social contracts, but nothing is objectively immoral. Do you believe morality has existence outside of man and the perceptions of man? [i]Why [/i] is murder immoral?[/quote]

You are correct here.

It is a very sad conclusion of atheism Edited by Hassan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester
[quote name='Hassan' post='1665803' date='Sep 28 2008, 03:51 PM']That's not solipsism.

And a solipsist can be an atheist.[/quote]
Effectively, it is solispsism.

Solipsists [i]must [/i] be atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hassan
[quote name='Winchester' post='1665836' date='Sep 28 2008, 04:00 PM']Effectively, it is solispsism.

Solipsists [i]must [/i] be atheists.[/quote]
With all due respect, and I mean that, I think you are confused. about the definition of Solipsism
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism[/url]

There is absolutly not necessary link between Atheism and Solipsism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester
I disagree. If we deny the ability to know anything outside our minds, we cannot know there is a god. I will admit one could claim agnosticism, so my oringal statement is amended to admit agnosticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hassan
[quote name='Winchester' post='1665847' date='Sep 28 2008, 05:32 PM']I disagree. If we deny the ability to know anything outside our minds, we cannot know there is a god. I will admit one could claim agnosticism, so my oringal statement is amended to admit agnosticism.[/quote]


You do not "know" there is a God in a sense of haveing objectiably verifiable conclusive proof, yet you are not an atheist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester
[quote name='Hassan' post='1665850' date='Sep 28 2008, 05:44 PM']You do not "know" there is a God in a sense of haveing objectiably verifiable conclusive proof, yet you are not an atheist[/quote]
I can apprehend that knowledge in a way a solipsist rejects. My view of knowledge is different from that of a solipsist. Solipsists reject the ability to know even that which is objectively verifiable. Faith in God don't stand a chance in that arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hassan
[quote name='Winchester' post='1665854' date='Sep 28 2008, 05:50 PM']I can apprehend that knowledge in a way a solipsist rejects. My view of knowledge is different from that of a solipsist. Solipsists reject the ability to know even that which is objectively verifiable. Faith in God don't stand a chance in that arena.[/quote]


Only if you conflate "faith" in x with "knoledge" of x (in the sense I referenced)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...